I have an object to which, for many years, I’ve given pride of place in every house I have lived. It’s a wall hanging of sorts, a two-by-three-foot glass display that contains a hand-printed daily schedule. It includes eight and a half hours of sleep; an hour each for breakfast, lunch, and dinner; a half hour of exercise; three hours of fresh air; and three hours of after-dinner board games and movie watching. Someone pilfered this beautiful object from a psychiatric ward in provincial Russia, to present to me as a gift. I never tire of looking at it, just as my daughter never tires of pointing out the entry “An hour of rest: 14:00-16:00.” How wondrous, to be able to make an hour of rest stretch out for two—to subvert the flow of time.

Every year when I read Yevgeny Zamyatin’s “We” with my students, I wish the psychiatric-ward schedule were hanging in the classroom, because Zamyatin’s novel imagined a regimented way of life, and because it, too, seemed to subvert the flow of time. Born in 1884, Zamyatin was a revolutionary, indeed a Bolshevik; he was imprisoned and sent into internal exile in the tsar’s Russia, and then moved for a time to England, returning just a month before the Bolsheviks came to power. Three years later, he wrote his dystopia, possibly revising it in 1921 or 1922. By the time he had completed a final draft, the Bolsheviks had already imposed censorship and created the secret police. It took them a few years to establish Soviet rule over most of what had been the Russian Empire, to expropriate most property and to build its first concentration camp, and it took longer to establish a reign of terror. But Zamyatin had already written a novel that described many of the specifics of that terror, and of other terrors to come in the twentieth century.

If you have heard of “We,” you have heard that it was prescient and pioneering, and that it influenced Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, whose dystopian novels have, in turn, helped shape our understanding of the twentieth century and beyond. “We” conceives a One State where people don’t have proper names; they are marked by a combination of letters and numbers, like the inmates of Nazi camps. They wear identical clothes, their hair is uniformly shorn, their food is synthetic and purely utilitarian, and their homes are identical and transparent. (Soviet life, with its enforced uniformity on the one hand and extreme scarcity on the other, was eventually a less aesthetically pleasing version of this levelled existence.) They live according to a centralized schedule, a high-tech display that evokes my psych-ward timetable and specifies everything, down to the hour of lovemaking, with a partner who is assigned by the central authority. They speak an inverted language; the tyrant is called the Benefactor. The center of communal life is the public execution, which is glorified and perfected: a human life reduced to a small amount of clean water and ash. Zamyatin imagined this twenty years before Nazi Germany began the sanitized, industrial mass murder of people who had been reduced to numbers. Zamyatin’s dystopia is a walled and domed city, and its inhabitants are unaware of the existence of a larger world. He imagined this years before the Iron Curtain sealed off the Soviet Union.

Though Zamyatin wrote “We” several years before the word “totalitarianism” appeared in political speech, and a full three decades before political theorists defined and described it, he did more than predict some of its characteristics; he foresaw its defining condition, which is the destruction of the individual. Hannah Arendt, in “The Origins of Totalitarianism” and elsewhere, argued that totalitarianism was a novel form of government, distinct from the tyrannies that preceded it. The tyrants of the past demanded obedience—the outward performance of certain behaviors—but totalitarian regimes seek to subsume, to obliterate the core of the human being. Obedience is not enough, nor is the performance of love; the regime demands that and everything else, too. The contours of the self disappear, and humans meld into what she called “one man of gigantic dimensions.” Zamyatin found the word for it: we.

“We” could not be published in Soviet Russia. It was translated into English in 1924, then into Czech and French. A couple of years after the Czech publication, Zamyatin—at the time a writer in good standing, the head of the Leningrad branch of the Writers’ Union—was denounced by every journal and publishing house in the U.S.S.R. He had to resign his post, become a pariah. In 1931, he emigrated to Paris, by special dispensation. By this point, Soviet borders were effectively closed.

All of the foregoing is accurate, and all of it is obvious enough. The contemporary Russian literary critic Dmitry Bykov, however, has argued that Zamyatin’s predictions were off. “He was afraid of the wrong thing,” Bykov said, in a 2016 lecture. “He envisioned an exemplary totalitarian state, built on absolute reason, on logic . . . and an enforced totalitarian benevolence.” Zamyatin’s dystopia was clear, sterile, perfect—and hence soulless, and soul-killing. In reality, Bykov continued, it was not a tyranny of perfection that made twentieth-century totalitarianism so terrible; it was a tyranny of the worst.

To be sure, the horrors of the twentieth century were, as the philosopher Zygmunt Bauman argued, functions of modernity. The Holocaust ran on rails, timetables, and the technology that made mass, anonymized murder possible. Zamyatin was a man not only of words but also of science; he was educated as an engineer and worked in ship building, as one of the creators of a giant Russian icebreaker. He had a keen sense of the ways in which technology could transform human existence, and this, perhaps, enabled him to envision humans reduced to numbers, and to handfuls of ash. What he didn’t foresee, as Bykov noted, is the irresistible appeal to the worst in human nature, the very appeal that links the darkest moments of the twentieth century to the autocrats and aspiring autocrats of the twenty-first century. They invite their followers to abandon conventions of dignity and expectations of morality and be their worst selves, together.

The regimes in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had enough similarities to allow scholars to create a new category that included them: totalitarianism. Both regimes relied on propaganda and terror; both treated their populations as dispensable. But there was one significant difference that continues to haunt us to this day: whereas Hitler openly appealed to the worst in humanity, the Bolsheviks built their state in the name of beautiful, humanistic ideas. The Bolsheviks pictured a state in which everyone was perfectly equal, everyone received according to need and contributed according to ability, and everyone existed in perfect harmony with the rest. Zamyatin’s dystopia is consistent with these ideas, and prefigures their corruption. As the son of an Orthodox minister and himself a Russian revolutionary, Zamyatin had a deep understanding of, even love for, the ideals of communitarianism. When he visualized the ugly outcome of a relentless enforcement of these ideas, he used what he had surely once thought of as a beautiful word—we—to describe it.

In a world without personal boundaries, a world without deviation, conflict, serendipity, difference, a world without “I,” there can be no “us.” The we of “We” is a mass rather than a community of people. Zamyatin imagined that, if a totalitarian subject started pursuing his desires rather than following the master timetable and the Benefactor’s orders, he would become unable to live within the we. He would have to be fixed, executed, or expelled. In the novel, the protagonist, D-503, is diagnosed with having developed a soul—a condition that must be remedied so that he may be reintegrated into society.

As Zamyatin’s story is usually told, this is what happened to him, too. After the publication of “We” abroad, he was shut out of all Soviet institutions and was forced to ask Stalin to let him emigrate. That is the story I summarized above. It’s neat, but it’s not exactly true. Zamyatin’s initial loss of professional and social standing preceded the publication of “We” abroad, and it likely preceded the completion of the novel. In 1921, in an essay titled “I’m Afraid,” he wrote about what he saw as an emergent Soviet system for choosing ideologically reliable writers and allowing only them to be published. He classified writers as “agile” or “not agile” and claimed that the latter group—those unable to pitch their words precisely to the expectations of the new regime—had been rendered silent:

True literature can thrive only in places where literature is created not by obedient and reliable bureaucrats but by madmen, recluses, heretics, dreamers, rebels, and skeptics. Where a writer must be reasonable, faithful like a Catholic, useful in the present moment, where he cannot flail at everyone as Jonathan Swift did or smile at everything as Anatole France does, there can be no literature that is cast in bronze—there can only be the sort printed on paper, the newsprint sort that’s read today and used to wrap bars of soap tomorrow.

Source link

Review Overview


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *